Computer Audio has become the new
rage in audio and for good reason: one has an easy and instant access to all
their music as well the ability to search out countless other titles via the
internet. The issue is simply where to start, though the answer is quite
obvious: get a computer, rip and store the files, and then play them back to
some DAC. Of course being audiophiles …err the nuts we are… the questions start
to pile up rather quickly.

Mac or PC, and then once you got
that settled, there is all the minutiae related to just setting-up that
computer's OS and configuration. Then comes how best to rip and how best to save
the files, and then to where? Okay, so now that I have my files, how best to
play them back and how best to get the files out of the computer and to what DAC?
Yadda, yadda, yadda… each question leads to further questions to clarify the
previous that then lead to other questions that suggests another question and …a
downward spiral down into the rabbit hole we go.

So I went to the 2009 CES and
found not only a wealth of information, but a wealth of confusion or at the very
least, a wealth of disagreement among those that are either in the
recording/software side, the hardware-side, and/or the "expert" sides of
computer audio. Now CES is not the best place to get all the answers… time is an
issue as is finding all the people to ask, so I came up with 10 ‘key" questions
(these are my 10, you may have others or perhaps might not find these of any
benefit to you, but I chose them because they are of interest to me and besides
they reflect the most common or important areas that seem to pop-up whenever one
talks about computer-based audio, so go pound silicon if they don't work for
you.) and emailed them to 12 people in the industry to answer. Their responses
are here...

1. Let's start with interfaces; the obvious choices
are USB, Firewire, Optical, and S/PDIF. What is your opinion on any of these
interfaces? What if any, are the advantages or disadvantages of one over the
others in terms of resolution, jitter, etc.?

I believe the interface itself doesn't really matter
as long as the transport is done correctly. There are rumors that one offers
slightly less higher or lower rates of jitter but that all depends on
implementation. USB has become popular because everyone has a USB port. Most USB
DACs out there are really just external sound cards with a simplified output.
Personally I've chosen an optical output so that I can decouple the PC from the
DAC circuit altogether.

2. With regards to software there are also strong
opinions as to some being vastly superior (or for that matter, inferior) to
others; people clearly hear differences in how files are being played back and
therefore prefer one over the others. There is also a growing opinion that Pro
software is the only way to go and that using iTunes, WMP, MAX, or other free
software playback programs (FooBar, JRiver, MAX, etc.) is not the way to go.
That is, these are sonically and musically inferior to the Pro software because
the Pro software (say for example Amarra, Izotpe, etc.) is simply "better" at
playing back music files. What is your opinion on what is going on here? That
is, why would any of these programs be superior—or for that matter, inferior—to another with respect to say a .wav file in any resolution: 16/44.1, 24/96, or
24/192? Is it a matter of timing and jitter? Issues with the operating software
and processing? The fact that some software runs "cleaner" than others—that there is nothing running in the background to muck things up? Or as some suggest
that the "math" is simply better in some software than in others?

Let's keep in mind here, that computer audio is new
to a lot of "audiophiles." Everyone talks about one software player being better
than the other, when it really doesn't matter. The "better" software players
will allow the user to choose what type of output they want to use. Some
consumer grade software doesn't allow this and will output it using the system
driver which could be altering the sound (allowing volume control, albeit
implemented correctly causing dither issues.) Some of them have built in sound
enhancers and equalizers. As long as the software allows bit for bit output then
it really doesn't matter. I hear a lot of people talk about loading music into
RAM first, which by design ALL computers do and have been doing for a long time.
Everything is loaded into RAM before processing! Ignorance is bliss.

3. Let's move on to ripping. As with the above,
there are proponents that claim only certain software, and optical drives for
that matter, can "accurately" rip a CD. That they can clearly hear differences
between rips via different means; even though the rips are bit for bit perfect.
Any thoughts on what is going on here? Is there an advantage to using specific
ripping software or drives over another? Say iTunes, WMP, Max or whatever when
compared to say EAC?

Bits are bits. As long as you get a perfect
representation of the original then you have it. It's not rocket science. People
prefer EAC mainly because of how verbose it is with its error checking. If it
has a scratched up disc, it will get a bit wrong and the checksum will be
incorrect. It will then re-calculate what that bit was supposed to be using
parity and fix it. Done. I personally use iTunes these days; I'm in this for
simplicity.

4. File formats. Any reason why a .wav, AIFF, or
FLAC file is better than say Apple Lossless? Again people suggest a strong
preference for one over the others, so something must be going on here?

A file format is simply a container. FLAC caught on
because it's free! It compresses audio like how WinZip compresses data by
removing empty space but with checksums to put it back during playback. This
means it's lossless. Apple Lossless and FLAC are bit by bit perfect and this has
been proven by engineers with the correct equipment. People still aren't
satisfied with this answer so they choose to find another thing to bitch about,
now it's that the processor isn't powerful enough to re-inflate the compressed
file fast enough for jitter free playback! Give me a break, if your made in
China iPod can do it, your $2000 Mac Book Pro can do it while calculating Pi to
the nth place and re-encoding a 30gb Blu-Ray disc to h.264. Ridiculous to think
otherwise.

5. There is also a movement towards Pro DACs.
Naturally there are DACs of varying quality and performance, but is there any
reason why a PRO DAC would be better than a DAC made by a manufacturer from the
audio community? Say ones of comparable quality and build?

A DAC is a personal choice, as all of them have
their unique sonic signature. Some people even prefer Tube DACs to give it the
"analog fuzzy" feeling. Who am I to differ? As long as it knows how to handle
the minute jitter and to reproduce the audio the same way it was created then I
don't care. Obviously most pro DACS have a less-noisy power supply and are more
neutral sounding because that's what they are for. Another plus with pro DACS is
that you usually get a word clock in so that you can slave its clock to a master
clock along with all of the other equipment in the chain. This is great for
producing music for a master, playback it's not that important.

6. Along those same lines, what makes one DAC a
better choice for computer-based audio than another? Jitter reduction, chip
sets, power supply, etc?

Again I think the most important part here is that
it can cancel out any interference from the PC itself. I've chosen an optical
transmission path just for this alone. Jitter is a problem of the past; sure it
is still there if you pick it apart with a scope but can you hear it? Just buy
the DAC that you prefer best. This is like discussing the preference of solid
state or tube preamplifiers. Power supply is very important when dealing with
high speed digital.

7. What do you see as being the most important
factor in getting the best sound in computer-based audio? That is what should
the consumer address with the greatest concern when setting up a computer-based
audio system?

The basics (just like everything else) room
treatment, speaker placement and a DAC that sounds good to the consumer.

8. Along with that, what do you see as being the
most important factor in NOT getting the best sound in computer-based audio?
That is, what can have the greatest potential to adversely affect the sound in
computer-based audio?

Noisy power; get your power cleaned up somehow and
you will notice quite a difference. I can't stress how important it is to have
clean power for digital front ends, especially a computer running at 3GHz.

9. Some suggest that they computer must be audio
dedicated. That is it must be "built" or configured for the specific purpose of
only playing music and that any and all non-audio related programs and such must
be eliminated. Your feelings on this? Is it important or not, and why so?

Absolutely ludicrous: People that make this
statement obviously don't understand how modern computers work. If they think
that a computer isn't powerful enough to multitask (what they're designed for)
then they are in the wrong business and should stick with hanging trinkets on
the wall for better sound enhancement.

10. Where do you see the greatest impact to come in
computer-based audio for the future?

Software and hardware designers that understand how
to output the file without any change made. Right now we are still battling with
nice consumer based playback software but with a poor transport mechanism. Pro
audio software is for making music, chopping it up and producing! If I have to
get off my ass every time I want to change CD's and songs then I think the
entire point has been missed for PC based audio playback. Give me a remote
control, a sexy interface, and bit perfect sound to my DAC and we'll call it a
win.

Pete Davey is a regular contributor to Positive
Feedback Online. Peter has built and worked with computers and audio components
since the age of 15. Peter has extensive experience in the computer/technology industries
where he has held various positions.